b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum
List archive
- From: "Peter Kirk" <Peter_Kirk AT sil.org>
- To: "Dan Wagner" <Dan.Wagner AT datastream.net>, "Biblical Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
- Subject: RE: Is this a rock or not? I Would like to know
- Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 01:30:20 -0000
Dan, I think you are stating too much now. I am not quite a "professing
Christian who considers the
NT obsolete/irrelevant for understanding the OT/HB." But I would strictly
limit that relevance to the following (at least as a first stab at what I
would believe):
1) The NT is relevant in the same way as any other ancient text for the
light it might show on the meaning of the original Hebrew text and its
background, as in our discussion on 'ALMA.
2) The NT is relevant to understanding the fulfilment of certain prophetic
passages.
3) The NT is relevant to the hermeneutical process of applying the HB to
modern life.
But I do not hold that the NT has special or normative relevance to
understanding the meaning of the HB text as the authors intended it. That
may be the position of some Christians, but not of all.
There is of course another group of "Christians" who consider the NT
irrelevant to the HB: those who(whether in theory or in practice) hold
Marcion's position of rejecting the HB entirely. Sadly, many evangelical
churches in practice come close to that position.
Peter Kirk
-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Wagner [mailto:Dan.Wagner AT datastream.net]
Sent: 17 February 2001 02:25
To: Biblical Hebrew
Subject: RE: Is this a rock or not? I Would like to know
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Hutchesson [mailto:mc2499 AT mclink.it]
> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 20:25
> To: Biblical Hebrew
> Subject: Re: Is this a rock or not? I Would like to know
>
<snip>
>
> >> >Further, since such interpretations are significant to
> Christians for
> >> >understanding the Hebrew Bible,
> >>
> >> This is a statement of (obviously some form of Christian)
> belief which
> will
> >> not be acceptable to all on this list.
> >
> >Which is precisely what i assume in stating it. It only applies to
> >Christians.
>
> Subset of Christians, Dan, subset.
Depending on ones definition of the term. I follow the one presented in the
NT. However, i am not aware of *any* professing Christian who considers the
NT obsolete/irrelevant for understanding the OT/HB. Perhaps it is only my
ignorance.
<snip>
-
RE: Is this a rock or not? I Would like to know
, (continued)
- RE: Is this a rock or not? I Would like to know, Liz Fried, 02/16/2001
- RE: Is this a rock or not? I Would like to know, Dan Wagner, 02/16/2001
- Re: Is this a rock or not? I Would like to know, Raymond de Hoop, 02/17/2001
- Re: Is this a rock or not? I Would like to know, Raymond de Hoop, 02/17/2001
- Re: Is this a rock or not? I Would like to know, Jonathan D. Safren, 02/17/2001
- Re: Is this a rock or not? I Would like to know, Ian Hutchesson, 02/17/2001
- Re: Is this a rock or not? I Would like to know, Dave Washburn, 02/17/2001
- Re: Is this a rock or not? I Would like to know, Ian Hutchesson, 02/17/2001
- RE: Is this a rock or not? I Would like to know, Peter Kirk, 02/17/2001
- RE: Is this a rock or not? I Would like to know, Peter Kirk, 02/17/2001
- RE: Is this a rock or not? I Would like to know, Peter Kirk, 02/17/2001
-
Re: Is this a rock or not? I Would like to know,
Charles David Isbell, 02/18/2001
- RE: Is this a rock or not? I Would like to know, Peter Kirk, 02/19/2001
- Re: Is this a rock or not? I Would like to know, Bill Rea, 02/18/2001
- Re: Is this a rock or not? I Would like to know, Bill Rea, 02/18/2001
- RE: Is this a rock or not? I Would like to know, Liz Fried, 02/18/2001
- Re: Is this a rock or not? I Would like to know, Stephen C. Carlson, 02/18/2001
- Re: Is this a rock or not? I Would like to know, Ian Hutchesson, 02/18/2001
- RE: Is this a rock or not? I Would like to know, Peter Kirk, 02/19/2001
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.